119 lines
6.9 KiB
Standard ML
119 lines
6.9 KiB
Standard ML
|
Copyright 1983
|
|||
|
|
NPG,Ltd
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
COPY-PROTECTION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ISSUE: Should people who, though not for personal profit, deliberately
|
|||
|
|
violate copyright restrictions and reproduce copy- protected computer programs
|
|||
|
|
be treated as criminals? (1) Yes. They are performing criminal acts; the fact
|
|||
|
|
that they use a computer should have no bearing on their criminality. (2) No.
|
|||
|
|
When we teach them to be smart with computers it does not make sense to then
|
|||
|
|
put them in jail.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
BACKGROUND: As in the case with traditional literary works, a copyright
|
|||
|
|
gives the authors and publishers of software products (computer programs) the
|
|||
|
|
legal right to prevent people from freely copying their works. However,
|
|||
|
|
because they have to be effectively copied every time they are loaded into a
|
|||
|
|
computer, software products are much easier to copy than paper products such as
|
|||
|
|
books. Copying a book is a very obvious task and one that requires a long time
|
|||
|
|
and often involves a substantial copying cost. In contrast, a disk containing
|
|||
|
|
the same amount of information can be silently and secretly copied in a matter
|
|||
|
|
of seconds. In cases of deliberately copying programs for resale, few people
|
|||
|
|
appear inclined to argue that the copiers should not be prosecuted like any
|
|||
|
|
ordinary criminal. But the situation is not as clear when the person doing the
|
|||
|
|
copying is doing it for personal use and not reselling the copy. Software
|
|||
|
|
developers worry that even when not done for profit there is a growing tendency
|
|||
|
|
to "share" extra copies of programs. To combat this as well as more explicit
|
|||
|
|
forms of copying software developers incorporate special features in their
|
|||
|
|
programs to prevent copying, or at least make it more difficult to do so. To
|
|||
|
|
the dismay of the software developers, the use of every new "copy-protection"
|
|||
|
|
technique is rapidly followed by the development and sale of generally
|
|||
|
|
inexpensive programs to copy or even "unprotect" the software. Once
|
|||
|
|
"unprotected," the software can easily be copied by most ordinary computers.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
POINT: If our increasingly important software industry (estimated revenues:
|
|||
|
|
greater than $16 billion by 1986) is to remain viable, we must curb copying.
|
|||
|
|
If people use programs to copy copy- protected software they will inevitably
|
|||
|
|
begin to "share" these copies with others. We should crack down hard on people
|
|||
|
|
who copy such programs. We should do the same thing to those who develop and
|
|||
|
|
sell software to facilitate program copying. Both are engaged in activities
|
|||
|
|
designed to "steal" legitimate income from the software producers. Both should
|
|||
|
|
be treated as criminals. At the same time, software companies should be
|
|||
|
|
encouraged to invest more time, effort and resources to developing better
|
|||
|
|
techniques for protecting their programs from illicit copying. The way to
|
|||
|
|
solve this problem is to build better "locks," and then come down hard on those
|
|||
|
|
who still try to break them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
COUNTERPOINT: Calls for tougher enforcement and better protection techniques
|
|||
|
|
seek to treat symptoms of the problem rather than its underlying causes. A lot
|
|||
|
|
of quite legitimate users defeat copy- protection features simply because these
|
|||
|
|
features frustrate their ability to effectively use the program. A
|
|||
|
|
copy-protected program prevents the user from making a backup copy, meaning
|
|||
|
|
that he has to assume the risk of an accidental erasure which will cost
|
|||
|
|
hundreds of dollars. It also makes it difficult to run programs on machines
|
|||
|
|
with "hard disk" storage devices. And, copy protection prevents users with
|
|||
|
|
programming skills from doing otherwise perfectly legal and reasonable
|
|||
|
|
customizing or "patching" the program to better suit their individual purposes.
|
|||
|
|
Even if more restrictive laws were passed, enforcement would become a very
|
|||
|
|
difficult problem. Unless the policing activities expanded far beyond current
|
|||
|
|
levels (with attendant tax increases) it would be virtually impossible to
|
|||
|
|
enforce such a ban effectively. An unenforceable or unenforced law creates
|
|||
|
|
many potential problems. All of the emphasis on copy-protection is, in the
|
|||
|
|
long run, a waste of effort -- it is just another pressure to keep the software
|
|||
|
|
costs too high. Precisely the same software design advances that allow new
|
|||
|
|
copy-protection techniques, also allow for techniques to defeat the protection.
|
|||
|
|
Adding copy-protection creates about as much advance as does a dog chasing its
|
|||
|
|
tail. A lot of experts predict that, for simple economic reasons, future
|
|||
|
|
distribution of software programs will increasingly be accomplished through
|
|||
|
|
electronic communications means. To do that, by definition, requires a program
|
|||
|
|
that is not copy-protected; otherwise you couldn't convert it into a form that
|
|||
|
|
can be communicated. So the handwriting is on the wall for copy-protection as
|
|||
|
|
a way of ensuring income. It is time for the software industry to face
|
|||
|
|
reality, to stop adding protection features which limit the usefulness of their
|
|||
|
|
overpriced programs. Instead the industry should begin to experiment seriously
|
|||
|
|
with an approach called "freeware." Under this concept, now being used with
|
|||
|
|
apparent success by several smaller firms, programs are priced in the $10 to
|
|||
|
|
$50 range. The programs are not copy-protected; to the contrary, copying is
|
|||
|
|
encouraged. The program authors/producers simply request that each user who
|
|||
|
|
finds the program useful to him or her send payment for the program to the
|
|||
|
|
author/producers. Apparently, the "freeware" concept, which emphasizes the
|
|||
|
|
honesty of people rather than treating everyone as a potential crook, works.
|
|||
|
|
But even if it doesn't, the traditional approach doesn't work and should not be
|
|||
|
|
encouraged any more.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
QUESTIONS:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o When you pay a lot of money for a computer program, should you be entitled
|
|||
|
|
to control how the program is used?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o Is there a difference between making your own copy of a library from
|
|||
|
|
copying a commercially produced program (assuming you did not steal it)?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o Do you think that the "freeware" concept, that relies on people's honesty,
|
|||
|
|
can really work?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o If you don't punish people who "break" copy-protections and copy programs,
|
|||
|
|
will you encourage even more copying?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o Is it important to distinguish between copying that is done to make money
|
|||
|
|
and that which is done for other reasons?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
o Would it be practical to enforce laws that outlawed copying?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
REFERENCES:
|
|||
|
|
A Hard Stand for Software Protection, David A. Savner and
|
|||
|
|
Barry D. Weiss, Computerworld (In-Depth), September 26, 1983
|
|||
|
|
ICEE Develops Educational-Software Copying Policy, Scott
|
|||
|
|
Mace, Infoworld, Vol.5/No.38
|
|||
|
|
Software Piracy: Formulating A Plan for Protection, Joseph
|
|||
|
|
I. Rosenbaum, Computerworld, September 12, 1983, p. 154
|
|||
|
|
License To Own Computers--Projections of a Paranoid?, Alan
|
|||
|
|
Stein, Infoworld, Vol.5/No.40
|
|||
|
|
Free Software, Tom Shea, Infoworld, Vol.5/No.26, p.31
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(Note: Please leave your thoughts -- message or uploaded comments -- on this
|
|||
|
|
issue on Tom Mack's RBBS, The Second Ring --- (703) 759-5049. Please address
|
|||
|
|
them to Terry Steichen of New Perspectives Group, Ltd.)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|